Mark Jones wrote:
>What is it with you guys and the Wall Street Journal?
It's a daily newspaper for the U.S. business class, which, despite
its prejudices (which the WSJ indulges for them on its edit page),
wants to be well informed. I've always found it to be intelligent,
well-written, and far more informative on the realities of U.S.
political and social life than the NY Times and other general papers.
Why, what do you have against it?
>First off, Doug, it isn't much use credulously repeating snippets from DoE
>websites about production or reserves growth, down to the last 0.9 of a
>point; I'd hate to think this is how you always work.
I cited a 1998 estimate of reserves, and data on consumption for 1980
through 1999. You have better data?
> You ought at least to
>call one of the lying bureacrats at the EIA and ask them to justify their
>own figures, given that a child of 6 with his/her wits about them could spot
>a few obvious howlers:
>
>For instance, when I said p.a. production is "+- 30bn bbls" you quickly
>corrected me. But why do you suppose that annual production is 27 or 28
>(latest stab in the DoE dark) bn bbls? The DoE figures themselves include an
>amount for "above-quota" exports by Opec countries.
Consumption, that was. Are those numbers wrong too?
Doug
